The Harm of Dynamic Equivalence

[John of Japan]

Here's an article about the 100th anniversary of the wonderful Chinese Union Version (CUV) of 1919: file:///C:/Users/John/Downloads/rtcl%20Ma%20on%20100th%20anniversary%20Chinese%20Union%20Version.pdf

Note that about half way down the second page, it says that the Morrison and Milne translation of 1823 "used literary Chinese." That brand of Chinese was called "High Wenli," and was aimed at scholars. So my point here is that quite often translators use a literary or even classical version of a language instead of the street language of, say, the original Living Bible. Often it just seems more respectful, but there can be other reasons. For example, I know a translator working on a Bible in the classical version of an Asian language simply because there are many dialects, but everyone knows the classical language, so it is a lingua franca.

 

[John of Japan]

Just to top things off, a few verses at a time, I will add my own personal translation of John 3 from the Byzantine Textform Greek NT, ed. by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. It's only fair for you to get a chance to critique me.

1. There was a man of the Pharisees whose name was Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
1 Ἦν δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, Νικόδημος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων·

2. This same man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a Teacher Who has come from God, for no one could do these signs which You do if God were not with him.”
2 οὗτος ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν νυκτός, καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ῥαββί, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα δύναται ποιεῖν ἃ σὺ ποιεῖς, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

3. Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly I say to you, if someone is not born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
3 Ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

4. Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
4 Λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Νικόδημος, Πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν; Μὴ δύναται εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ γεννηθῆναι;

5. Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, if a person is not born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
5 Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

6. He who has been born of the flesh is flesh, and he who has been born of the Spirit is spirit.
6 Τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν· καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have some time this week before starting teaching on Monday, and one of our translation students is interested in the translation philosophy of Dynamic Equivalence (DE) in the Good News Bible, often the source text (ST) for Wycliffe people and other Bible translators. (DE, invented by Eugene Nida, was later renamed functional equivalence because of misuse of the original term, but we'll use DE.) So to help me with that, first I'm going to define and describe DE, then go through the GNB John 3.

First of all, it is important to note that Nida was neoorthodox, so his translation theory is based on the neoorthodox view of the inspiration of Scripture. Nida wrote, “Neo-orthodox theology has given a new perspective to the doctrine of divine inspiration. For the most part, it conceives of inspiration primarily in terms of the response of the receptor, and places less emphasis on what happened to the source at the time of writing” (Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of Translating, 1964, p. 27.).

Therefore, the goal of a DE translation is the experience of the reader in the target language, more so than the authorial intent of the original document. The term “receptor” is very important in DE, so I avoid it in favor of "target." It refers to the reader of the Bible translation, who is assumed to react to Scriptures in an existential way, experiencing something which is not necessarily eternal truth but merely subjective truth for the immediate present.

Nida wrote, “Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language” (Nida and Tabor, The Theory and Practice of Translation, 1982, p. 24). This is called "reader response."

So, why don't I like DE, other than the fact that it is based on neoorthodoxy?
1. It often misses the nuances of the original language by making the target language primary.
2. It usually seeks to make ambiguity explicit, therefore defeating the purpose of the ambiguity used by the original divine and human authors.
3. It often adds material that the translator thinks necessary to make meaning explicit.
4. It sometimes leaves out what it considers to be repetition, meaning some of the character of the original is lost ("Verily, verily....).
5. It actually looks down on tribal people, thinking they are not bright enough to understand the meaning without extra words being added.
6. Etc. etc.

Would you say any difference between the translation philosphy of the GNB and say the CSB, as both claim to not be a formal version?

And my main problem with those more thought for thought such as Niv would be in how they decoded to become more gender inclusive in their translation choices?

 

[John of Japan]

Would you say any difference between the translation philosphy of the GNB and say the CSB, as both claim to not be a formal version?

The CSB is an optimal equivalence version, which is a literal method. DE advocates would probably call it's method formal equivalence, but most in my camp reject that term.

And my main problem with those more thought for thought such as Niv would be in how they decoded to become more gender inclusive in their translation choices?

Big mistake, which I think the NIV translators regretted.

 

[Yeshua1]

The CSB is an optimal equivalence version, which is a literal method. DE advocates would probably call it's method formal equivalence, but most in my camp reject that term.


Big mistake, which I think the NIV translators regretted.

How did you view the 1984 Niv, and yuyo would then see the Csb as superior to the Niv 2011 revision?

 

[John of Japan]

How did you view the 1984 Niv,

The NIV is a moderate DE translation. You may recall a thread I did some years ago going through a chapter of Matthew spotting the DE renderings like I did in the GNB on this thread.

and yuyo would then see the Csb as superior to the Niv 2011 revision?

Definitely.

 

[agedman]

The CSB is an optimal equivalence version, which is a literal method. DE advocates would probably call it's method formal equivalence, but most in my camp reject that term.


Big mistake, which I think the NIV translators regretted.

“Optimal equivalence?”

Really?

It seems as though someone in the CSB is attempting to get folks to accept and appreciate a less than formal rendering.

When does a believer take as foundational to the truth anything presented that is less?

(Is this a poking the bear post?)

 

[Yeshua1]

“Optimal equivalence?”

Really?

It seems as though someone in the CSB is attempting to get folks to accept and appreciate a less than formal rendering.

When does a believer take as foundational to the truth anything presented that is less?

(Is this a poking the bear post?)

Hey, it worked for the Nkjv, as they used same terminology!

 

[John of Japan]

“Optimal equivalence?”

Really?

It seems as though someone in the CSB is attempting to get folks to accept and appreciate a less than formal rendering.

When does a believer take as foundational to the truth anything presented that is less?

(Is this a poking the bear post?)

To be honest, I do not have the CSB but only the HCSB, which I've read through a couple of times. So I'm assuming from what I've read and heard that the CSB is not that much of a revision, though I do with they'd stuck with Yahweh in the OT instead of LORD in the CSB.

As for optimal equivalence (OE), this is a genuine theory of translation set forth by my old Hebrew teacher, Dr. James Price, who was the OT editor on both the NKJV and the HCSB. Both of these versions claim OE as the theory of translation behind their version. Dr. Price has delineated his theory in a number of articles and in two books, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation (1987) and A Theory for Bible Translation: an Optimal Equivalent Model (2007; very technical).

Here is a definition from Price: "Optimal Equivalence—a theory of translation that focuses on the equivalence of words, kernel clauses, transformations, and literary form” (Optimal Equivalence, 336).

 

[John of Japan]

Here is some more of my work.

7. Do not wonder because I said to you, ‘It is necessary that you be born again.’
7 Μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπόν σοι, Δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν.

8. The wind blows where it wishes, and we hear its sound, but we do not know where it came from and where it goes. All who are born of the Spirit are the same.”
8 Τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.

9. Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
9 Ἀπεκρίθη Νικόδημος καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι;

10. Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things?
10 Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις;

11. Truly, truly, I say to you, we say what we know, and we give testimony of what we see, and you do not receive our testimony.
11 Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε.

12. If I spoke to you of earthly things and you did not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?
12 Εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἶπον ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς, ἐὰν εἴπω ὑμῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια, πιστεύσετε;

 

[John of Japan]

And some more:

13. Also, no one has gone up into Heaven except He who descended from Heaven, the Son of Man who is in Heaven.
13 Καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.

14. And just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, in that way must the Son of Man be lifted up,
14 Καὶ καθὼς Μωσῆς ὕψωσεν τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου·

15. that all who believe in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.
15 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

16. For God loved the world in such a way that He gave his only begotten Son, so that every person who believes in Him might not perish, but have eternal life.
16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

17. For God did not send His Son into the world in order to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.
17 Οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.

18. Whoever believes in Him is not judged, but whoever does not believe is already judged, because he did not believe on the name of the only begotten Son of God.
18 Ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.

 

[John of Japan]

19. But this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and the people loved darkness more than the Light, because their works were evil,
19 Αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς· ἦν γὰρ πονηρὰ αὐτῶν τὰ ἔργα.

20. For every one who practices wickedness hates the light, and does not come to the light in order that his works might not be reproved.
20 Πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ φῶς, καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ.

21. But he who does the truth comes to the Light, in order that his works might be shown that they are works that have been done in God.
21 Ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα.

22. After these things, Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He stayed with them and baptized.
22 Μετὰ ταῦτα ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν· καὶ ἐκεῖ διέτριβεν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐβάπτιζεν.

23. And John was also baptizing in the Aenon near to Salem, because there was much water there, so people came forward and were baptized,
23 Ἦν δὲ καὶ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων ἐν Αἰνὼν ἐγγὺς τοῦ Σαλήμ, ὅτι ὕδατα πολλὰ ἦν ἐκεῖ· καὶ παρεγίνοντο καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο.

24. for John had not yet been cast into prison.
24 Οὔπω γὰρ ἦν βεβλημένος εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν ὁ Ἰωάννης.

 

[John of Japan]

25. So then, there was a dispute between the disciples of John and the Jews concerning purification.
25 Ἐγένετο οὖν ζήτησις ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν Ἰωάννου μετὰ Ἰουδαίου περὶ καθαρισμοῦ.

26. And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, about who you have witnessed, look, the same Person is baptizing, and all people are coming to Him.”
26 Καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ, Ῥαββί, ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας, ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει, καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτόν.

27. John answered and said, “A man cannot receive anything unless it is given to him from Heaven.
27 Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰωάννης καὶ εἶπεν, Οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν οὐδέν, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

28. You yourselves witness that I said that I am not the Christ, but that I am the one sent before Him.
28 Αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς μαρτυρεῖτε ὅτι εἶπον, Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ χριστός, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι Ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου.

29. He who has the bride is the Groom, but the best man of the Groom, who stands and hears Him, rejoices much because of the Groom’s voice. This joy of mine, therefore, has been filled up.
29 Ὁ ἔχων τὴν νύμφην, νυμφίος ἐστίν· ὁ δὲ φίλος τοῦ νυμφίου, ὁ ἑστηκὼς καὶ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, χαρᾷ χαίρει διὰ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ νυμφίου· αὕτη οὖν ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται.

30. It is necessary for this man to increase, but for me to decrease.
30 Ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν, ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

26. And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, about who you have witnessed, look, the same Person is baptizing, and all people are coming to Him.”
26 Καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ, Ῥαββί, ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας, ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει, καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτόν.

JoJ, please tell me that this was a typo. I don't think I could bear to hear that this is now considered literary, especially by you.

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ, please tell me that this was a typo. I don't think I could bear to hear that this is now considered literary, especially by you.

Are you complaining that I used "who" instead of "whom"? Other than that, I don't know what you mean. Going on that assumption, I'm not using a high literary style, but aiming at a colloquial style with some literary conventions, it might be said.

Concerning "whom," about 20 years ago Time Magazine made the decision not to use "whom" any more as the accusative of "who," since that usage has become quite rare in public discourse. I agree with Time in this.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Are you complaining that I used "who" instead of "whom"? Other than that, I don't know what you mean. Going on that assumption, I'm not using a high literary style, but aiming at a colloquial style with some literary conventions, it might be said.

Concerning "whom," about 20 years ago Time Magazine made the decision not to use "whom" any more as the accusative of "who," since that usage has become quite rare in public discourse. I agree with Time in this.

So now you are arguing for colloquial instead of literary? But earlier you said... Oh, never mind. I think I'm starting to get used to this from you.

 

[John of Japan]

So now you are arguing for colloquial instead of literary? But earlier you said... Oh, never mind. I think I'm starting to get used to this from you.

First off, you did not even seem to understand what I meant by a literary style. And now you want to lecture me on it. Interesting!

In Japanese, we have several levels of literary language. The lowest might use de aru for "is," while a higher level would use de arimasu. A higher level would be what you use with the Emperor. (A Bible translator friend of mine tells me that in Thailand they use Sanskrit to talk to the king.) The highest level is classical Japanese, which I won't try to explain.

Chinese had high and low Wenli back in the day, and it was debated which was better for the Bible.

Every linguist and translator knows about literary language. Here is a definition: "That dialect of a language which is regarded as the best and is used for literary purposes. The formal language of literature, in contradistinction to colloquial language or to the vernacular" (Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, p. 124).

 

[John of Japan]

So now you are arguing for colloquial instead of literary? But earlier you said... Oh, never mind. I think I'm starting to get used to this from you.

I was not actually arguing for a completely literary or colloquial style. Hopefully you've noticed that I did not use contractions, and that's part of a literary style. Surely you know that there are different levels of colloquial style. Try the Cottonpatch Bible....

The style to be used for a given translation is part of what is called its skopos ("goal" in Greek) in secular translation theory. Just so you know.... So the version I put here on the BB is going to be a somewhat different style than one just for myself in morning devotions.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is my final segment of John 3:

31. He who comes from above is above all. He who comes from the earth is of the earth, and speaks from the earth. He who comes from Heaven is above all.
31 Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν. Ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς, ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν, καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ· ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν.

32. He gives testimony of what He has seen and heard, and no one receives His testimony.
32 Καὶ ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ ἤκουσεν, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.

33. He who receives his testimony has marked with a seal that God is true.
33 Ὁ λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐσφράγισεν ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής ἐστιν.

34. For the one who God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by degrees.
34 Ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεός, τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ· οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα.

35. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.
35 Ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱόν, καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ.

36. He who believes on the Son has everlasting life, but he who does not trust the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
36 Ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

First off, you did not even seem to understand what I meant by a literary style. And now you want to lecture me on it. Interesting!

In Japanese, we have several levels of literary language. The lowest might use de aru for "is," while a higher level would use de arimasu. A higher level would be what you use with the Emperor. (A Bible translator friend of mine tells me that in Thailand they use Sanskrit to talk to the king.) The highest level is classical Japanese, which I won't try to explain.

Chinese had high and low Wenli back in the day, and it was debated which was better for the Bible.

Every linguist and translator knows about literary language. Here is a definition: "That dialect of a language which is regarded as the best and is used for literary purposes. The formal language of literature, in contradistinction to colloquial language or to the vernacular" (Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, p. 124).

Truly sorry you feel that way about it, JoJ. I didn’t and wouldn’t dare try to lecture you on it. If I misunderstood, I would say it is because sometimes you are either too unaware of what you are saying or have said, or you don’t mean it at all the way you say it.

This has nothing to do with Japanese, Chinese, Sanskrit, or any other foreign language. This has been strictly about translating into English, creating an acceptable English version, with the GNB in the crosshairs. Your bringing the others into it seems to cloud your thinking and thus the discussion and the issue. It’s as if you are trying to embody a corollary of your signature quote.